Topic Archives: Domestic Industry

In a recent ruling, the Commission made clear that public interest issues are not suitable for resolution through the ITC’s 100-day Early Disposition Pilot Program. Specifically, the Commission declined to employ the program to determine “whether the asserted patents were standards-essential and are encumbered by mandatory licensing obligations giving rise to public interest concerns.” ...›

For the second time in less than two months, the U.S. International Trade Commission has directed an administrative law judge to reach a decision on a potentially case-dispositive issue during the first 100 days of a new Section 337 investigation. ...›

On January 6, 2016, the Commission found a Section 337 violation in Investigation No. 337-TA-921 involving high-resolution sonar devices that commercial fishermen use to scan for fish under their boats. ...›

The past year has seen a number of major developments for Section 337 investigations at the International Trade Commission, including several high profile Federal Circuit decisions, the announcement or proposed expansion of two pilot programs for expedited proceedings, and the naming of a new Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Here are the Top 10 developments at the ITC in 2015. ...›

The Commission has once again addressed the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement in a final determination issued in Certain Television Sets, Television Receivers, Television Tuners, and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-910) (“Television Sets”) on October 30, 2015. ...›

Until 2014, the ITC’s domestic industry requirement had a counter-intuitive feature—those who manufactured a patented article in the United States faced a greater burden of proving their domestic industry than those who relied on their United States licensing activities. While the former were required to prove that their article practiced the patent-in-suit (known as the “technical prong” of a domestic industry showing), the latter had no such burden. Traditionally, the ITC did not require a complainant to meet the “technical prong” in the form of articles practicing the asserted patents for a licensing-based domestic industry. ...›

On May 11, 2015, the Federal Circuit reversed the Commission’s finding of a domestic industry in Investigation No. 337-TA-823, because the ITC’s “analysis and determination was based on qualitative factors” alone, without quantitative data showing that the alleged “investment” and “employment” were significant. Lelo Inc. v. International Trade Com’n, ---F.3d--- (2015). The Federal Circuit held that “qualitative factors alone are insufficient to show ‘significant investment in plant and equipment’ and ‘significant employment of labor or capital’ under prongs (A) and (B) of the § 337 domestic industry requirements.” ...›

The Commission decision of May 1, 2015, in Certain Soft-Edged Trampolines and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-908, held that complainants had satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement by proving that their products practiced a claim of the asserted patent, even though that claim was invalid. ...›

On March 20, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in LSI Corp. v. ITC, No. 2014-1410 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 20, 2015), affirming the Commission’s finding of no violation based on a failure by Complainant LSI to establish that its licensing activities, used to satisfy the domestic industry requirement, related to an actual article practicing the asserted patents. ...›

Post Navigation

Subscribe

Never miss a post from MoFo@ITC. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.